stephanie
02-26-2007, 03:17 PM
:clap:
By J. Matt Barber
The "Gray Lady" continues to morph before our very eyes into the proverbial "Old Gray Mare." She sure "ain't what she used to be."
They say that the pen is mightier than the sword, and for that reason they also say to tread lightly while criticizing anyone with both a warehouse full of ink and the inclination to use it against you.
But such is not the case with The New York Times, which has so discredited and marginalized itself through across-the-board, overtly slanted liberal "journalism" that its proud pen no longer cuts so deep and its venomous ink has lost its sting.
Rather than objectively measuring the events of our day as America's journalistic plumb line, The Times has become America's journalistic punch line.
So, what the heck. Let's criticize away.
It's a question many conservatives have asked for years: Can The New York Times stop its hard left spiral down the media bias toilet bowl of life? (O.K., conservatives haven't really been asking that question - they don't particularly care.)
But as the "Gray Lady" shaves her credibility cranium buck bare in a Britney-esque breakdown, it's no wonder that her circulation continues to nose-dive. Her formerly proud status as America's premier news source has been replaced by her seedy reputation as America's premier political operative for the far left-wing of the Democrat party.
Evidence of The Times' liberal bias is plentiful and falls to Earth from its West 43rd St. ivory tower like manna from Heaven, easing the hunger pangs of like-minded liberals wandering aimlessly in search of the "progressive" promised land.
There are more examples of New York Times bias than there are fathers to Anna Nicole's baby, but for the sake of clarity, let's focus on one of the most recent.
In a February 18, 2007, article titled, "Narrowing the Religion Gap," Gary Rosen, Managing Editor of Commentary Magazine, takes a number of jabs at conservative Christians while writing in the New York Times. Although the substance of his article narrowly differs from the hateful words of John Edwards' (D-North Carolina) former anti-Christian campaign bloggers Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, his approach is slightly more intelligent and subtle.
While addressing the "religion gap in our politics" and the role conservative Christians play therein, Rosen graciously allows us to bask in the warm glow of his journalistic objectivity.
Painting all conservative Christians with that broad brush of tolerance and diversity, Rosen opines: The "culprits are familiar, having become stock characters in our politics… McCain called them 'the agents of intolerance'… For a taste of their views you can visit the Web site of Concerned Women for America (C.W.A.)… As for dissenters from C.W.A.'s stand on issues like the 'sanctity of human life,' a handy link to Bible passages explains 'why you are a sinner and deserve punishment in Hell.'"
So, Rosen gently takes his readers by the hand and leads them skipping merrily down the primrose path of social enlightenment where they are to ultimately reach the conclusion he's so carefully laid out for them; namely, that conservative Christians believe everyone must agree with them politically or be made to suffer eternal damnation - burned alive forever in the pits of hell (or be made to spend eternity in the back seat of a gas-guzzling Hummer, sandwiched between George Bush and Ann Coulter on the way to a Dixie Chicks concert that's perpetually cancelled due to low ticket sales - take your pick).
Of course, in order to achieve his desired result, Rosen has to rearrange words a bit, take them entirely out of context and - oh - lie just a pinch.
the rest.....
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/12406/CFI/freedom/index.htm
By J. Matt Barber
The "Gray Lady" continues to morph before our very eyes into the proverbial "Old Gray Mare." She sure "ain't what she used to be."
They say that the pen is mightier than the sword, and for that reason they also say to tread lightly while criticizing anyone with both a warehouse full of ink and the inclination to use it against you.
But such is not the case with The New York Times, which has so discredited and marginalized itself through across-the-board, overtly slanted liberal "journalism" that its proud pen no longer cuts so deep and its venomous ink has lost its sting.
Rather than objectively measuring the events of our day as America's journalistic plumb line, The Times has become America's journalistic punch line.
So, what the heck. Let's criticize away.
It's a question many conservatives have asked for years: Can The New York Times stop its hard left spiral down the media bias toilet bowl of life? (O.K., conservatives haven't really been asking that question - they don't particularly care.)
But as the "Gray Lady" shaves her credibility cranium buck bare in a Britney-esque breakdown, it's no wonder that her circulation continues to nose-dive. Her formerly proud status as America's premier news source has been replaced by her seedy reputation as America's premier political operative for the far left-wing of the Democrat party.
Evidence of The Times' liberal bias is plentiful and falls to Earth from its West 43rd St. ivory tower like manna from Heaven, easing the hunger pangs of like-minded liberals wandering aimlessly in search of the "progressive" promised land.
There are more examples of New York Times bias than there are fathers to Anna Nicole's baby, but for the sake of clarity, let's focus on one of the most recent.
In a February 18, 2007, article titled, "Narrowing the Religion Gap," Gary Rosen, Managing Editor of Commentary Magazine, takes a number of jabs at conservative Christians while writing in the New York Times. Although the substance of his article narrowly differs from the hateful words of John Edwards' (D-North Carolina) former anti-Christian campaign bloggers Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, his approach is slightly more intelligent and subtle.
While addressing the "religion gap in our politics" and the role conservative Christians play therein, Rosen graciously allows us to bask in the warm glow of his journalistic objectivity.
Painting all conservative Christians with that broad brush of tolerance and diversity, Rosen opines: The "culprits are familiar, having become stock characters in our politics… McCain called them 'the agents of intolerance'… For a taste of their views you can visit the Web site of Concerned Women for America (C.W.A.)… As for dissenters from C.W.A.'s stand on issues like the 'sanctity of human life,' a handy link to Bible passages explains 'why you are a sinner and deserve punishment in Hell.'"
So, Rosen gently takes his readers by the hand and leads them skipping merrily down the primrose path of social enlightenment where they are to ultimately reach the conclusion he's so carefully laid out for them; namely, that conservative Christians believe everyone must agree with them politically or be made to suffer eternal damnation - burned alive forever in the pits of hell (or be made to spend eternity in the back seat of a gas-guzzling Hummer, sandwiched between George Bush and Ann Coulter on the way to a Dixie Chicks concert that's perpetually cancelled due to low ticket sales - take your pick).
Of course, in order to achieve his desired result, Rosen has to rearrange words a bit, take them entirely out of context and - oh - lie just a pinch.
the rest.....
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/12406/CFI/freedom/index.htm